If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re-looking at the photos of 29 Hanbury St, I'm failing to see how Richardson could've possibly missed the mutilated corpse slumped next to the steps.

And therein lies the problem, Harry. I once held the same opinion, but it turned out that was wrong on checking; the body could well have been out of sight, the door obscuring it. I presented a sketch to prove it, R J Palmer tested it and concluded I was right - but that does not seem to gain any traction. Herlock tells me that he does not care about any diagrams, because Richardson was so very certain.
And now look at you - you are just as certain! So who is to say that Richardson did not do what you do, he took a look at the stairs and the door and thought "I must have seen her", and so no sketch or diagram in the world can change that. If he said he must have seen her, then he must have seen her. Surely, he could not have the same mistake that you are making, Harry?

Nobody can stop people from saying "I don't care about the sketch disproving me - I still say he must have seen her". It is anti-intellectual but taking an anti-intellectual stance was never prohibited.

Add to this that it was dark, and that - as Trevor points out - Richardson presented "On The Stairs 1" and "On The Stairs 2", and we are left with testimonial walls caving in very quickly.

Comment

Iím afraid that this is little more than nitpicking. Richardson tells Chandler the reason for his presence in the yard and that he didnít see the body. He felt that this was enough info. When it was mentioned that if heíd just stood on the top step he might have missed the body he expands and explains that heíd actually sat on the step and that there was no body there.

He "expands and explains"? He changes his story, Herlock. Chandler is adamant that he had said that he did NOT go down the stairs. Once the story is altered, the damage is done.

Comment

It adds weight to the suggestion that he had nothing to hide. To support Phillips you have to either say that that Richardson lied - for which thereís no proper evidence or that he was mistaken which is unlikely in the absolute extreme. Therefore itís likely that he was correct and that Annie simply wasnít there at 4.50. Cadosch supports this.

The only thing I find slightly suspicious about Richardson`s story is that he claimed his knife was not sharp enough to cut the leather off his boot, or at least, to do the job to his satisfaction. He would later add to his statement that he had to borrow a sharp knife off someone at the market.

Comment

And Iím afraid that I donít consider your sketches as anything approaching proof. Itís simply close to impossible that Richardson would have pushed open the door, then held it open whilst descending the steps and then sat down in a position where he was absolutely adamant that he couldnít have missed a body whose head was 6-9 inches away. The more I think about it the less plausible it becomes.

When carrying things, I have often opened a self-closing door by giving it a push, subsequently stepping out on the porch and allowing the door to make contact with me. On those occasions, I never allow the door to slam against my chest and face, I instead let it make contact with my back, turning the back towards the oncoming door as I step out. If you think it is utterly unbelievable that Richardson could possibly have done as mundane a thing, then that will have to stand for you.

Comment

The only thing I find slightly suspicious about Richardson`s story is that he claimed his knife was not sharp enough to cut the leather off his boot, or at least, to do the job to his satisfaction. He would later add to his statement that he had to borrow a sharp knife off someone at the market.

Thatís a fair point Jon.

Regards

Herlock

"Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

Comment

And therein lies the problem, Harry. I once held the same opinion, but it turned out that was wrong on checking; the body could well have been out of sight, the door obscuring it. I presented a sketch to prove it, R J Palmer tested it and concluded I was right - but that does not seem to gain any traction. Herlock tells me that he does not care about any diagrams, because Richardson was so very certain.
And now look at you - you are just as certain! So who is to say that Richardson did not do what you do, he took a look at the stairs and the door and thought "I must have seen her", and so no sketch or diagram in the world can change that. If he said he must have seen her, then he must have seen her. Surely, he could not have the same mistake that you are making, Harry?

Nobody can stop people from saying "I don't care about the sketch disproving me - I still say he must have seen her". It is anti-intellectual but taking an anti-intellectual stance was never prohibited.

Add to this that it was dark, and that - as Trevor points out - Richardson presented "On The Stairs 1" and "On The Stairs 2", and we are left with testimonial walls caving in very quickly.

Feel free to re-post the sketch, Fisherman. I would like to take a look.

Thanks

Comment

It adds weight to the suggestion that he had nothing to hide. To support Phillips you have to either say that that Richardson lied - for which thereís no proper evidence or that he was mistaken which is unlikely in the absolute extreme. Therefore itís likely that he was correct and that Annie simply wasnít there at 4.50. Cadosch supports this.

Not necessarily , heres what i think Richardsons mistake was. I supporting Phillips t.o.d yes, and i think richo told chandler pretty much what happen, and that he did just go to the step and look to the right and then head off to work thus missing seeing Chapman just a feet or so away. Now i know its a long shot but i think he felt annoyed with himself for not seeing Chapman in that scenario so he makes up the'' i sat on the step'' bit to convince people that had there been a body laying there he surly would not have missed it, thus clearing him of embarrassing himself for not seeing Chapman in the first place....... just a theory

Comment

See my quote above, where Chandler says Richardson says he did not got down the cellar steps. The steps he sat on were not the cellar steps.

Point taken. But this is the quotation:

"Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

He did however not go to the top of the cellar steps, since he did not by his own admission enter the yard. And if "the top" represents not the cellar steps but instead the stairs leading into the house from the yard, then it seems Richardson said he did not sit down on them but instead he went to the top of the stairs.

Whether it is the papers screwing things up or Richardson doing it, it remains that his testimony is troublesome, to say the least.

Comment

He "expands and explains"? He changes his story, Herlock. Chandler is adamant that he had said that he did NOT go down the stairs. Once the story is altered, the damage is done.

Thats not entirely true. It’s not that he told him that he didn’t go down the stairs (steps) he just didn’t mention the fact. There is a difference.

It appears likely then that Richardson said something to the effect of - when I looked into the yard at 4.45 the body wasn’t there.

Thats not dishonesty. He just didn’t go into minute detail. Why would he have felt the need to? Chandler after all didn’t question him further. It was only later when it was suggested that if he’d just looked into the yard simply to check the cellar doors then he might have missed her. Richardson then expanded and said that he’d actually sat on the step and so couldn’t have missed her.

Can we think of a plausible, sinister reason why Richardson would have deliberately withheld information? I can’t really see one. In fact it’s surely less likely that he’d have consciously, and without compulsion, have placed himself at the scene with a knife. This adds to believability in my opinion.

Regards

Herlock

"Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

Comment

I will give it two minutes. If that doesn't do the trick, you must do the work yourself, I'm afraid.

Itís no use because you have Richardson sitting with the door in a certain position. What about when he first opened the door? The natural inclination would be to open the door wider and to hold it open as he descended the steps. Then he sits down inches from the body.

And yet again, Richardson was absolutely adamant that he couldnít have missed a mutilated corpse. Why does this count for nothing against a diagram? He was there. Eyes and a half a brain beat a diagram any day of the week Iím afraid.

Regards

Herlock

"Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”